Misplaced Pages

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jew has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jew. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarizes a Misplaced Pages template? LMAO --Zephram Stark 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Jolly glad that you think it's so funny honey... IZAK 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark

Hi SlimVirgin, I noticed that in the past you have blocked sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. This user is being a massive disruption at Inalienable rights and United States Declaration of Independence (even resulting in that page being protected). Just wanted to point out User:D'Arby (contribs), who I think is another one of his sockpuppets. This edit is clearly written in the same rambling style. Is there any way to ban this person, or ban him from specific articles? It's really getting ridiculous.--JW1805 17:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. He posted a message recently on my talk page saying that you were "completely corrupt" :)

Actually, I said, "SlimVirgin sometimes protects the User:talk page of the person she's blocked too. Unless you can think of any other reason for her to do that, I would have to say that it proves she is completely corrupt." --Zephram Stark 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Recently in the news

In regards to your work on the article concerning a certain critic of a certain search engine, I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your moral fortitude for sticking your neck out where you weren't obligated to. You are truly one of Misplaced Pages's most valuable contributors. Thanks. Nohat 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Accusing others of being sockpuppets

Why do you think I am someone`s else sockpuppet? I have been a membe of wikipedia for roughly a year...I hope you didn`t do that only to help your nominee to win this voting. Thanks PMLF 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Being called a sockpuppet is just Slim's way of saying that she doesn't like you. Don't worry. According to the official reasons to block someone, you can't be blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of course, SlimVirgin doesn't follow any rules or policies, but being called a sockpuppet has nothing to do with that. She blocks people without citing any rule or policy on a regular basis. The important thing to remember is not to buy into her crap. If she gets you believing that she has power over you, others may believe it too. --Zephram Stark 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I won`t alllow her do that.PMLF 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

While I'd like to distance myself from Rangerdude's wild accusations, I would like to know what your edit to WP:PPol was for. It's just that I don't see what you're trying to say. Could you respond to this? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Ben, I saw your note to FM. You can't file an RfAr as a first step; they won't accept it. You could try to file an article RfC, not one on an editor, but asking the community to comment on the article. Would that be a better idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This makes me nervous because, unless you commonly peruse FM's talk page, he is informing you of what I say through back channels which does not do anything to lessen my concerns about collusion amongst certain administrators. In fact, yesterday I noticed that administrator Duncharris, who showed up completely out of nowhere simply to call me a "lowly troll" on the ID talk page, came onto a page I created and worked on, Coingate (the activity there is very low), and reverted one of my edits without explanation. In fact his reversion made no sense. It reverted back to old information and a factual error. I had clearly explained in the history why I made my changes. Duncharris had to have seen this. There was also vandalism on a page I recently edited yesterday (the activity there is just as low). This the first time that the page was vandalized.

Anyway, if FM will not participate in an RFC, an RFA is my only choice. I believe FM has clearly violated numerous Misplaced Pages policies, and I believe I can cite precedent when arguing my case. Whether the ArbCom will see it fit to hear my case or judge in my favour is up to them to decide. It is also possible that I will also have sanctions placed against me for my actions. I accept that. I would like you to please ask FM to respond to my question if you could.

p.s. I already filed an article RFC. We talked about it before. That is why FM contacted you. --Ben 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

I believe FM is violating Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, and Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette. He refuses to discuss my points. His responses are all off-topic and insultingly dismissive. He simply says something to the effect of "your change is factually inaccurate and POV." This is what he did the first time and he offered no more explanation than that. When I asked him to, his response has nothing to do with my edits, he starts talking about "Intelligent Design" as if it was a book he read rather than something you'd find in an encyclopedia. I attempted to clarify myself numerous times and in numerous different ways. His responses again were dismissive and any discussion he added was off-topic. He is obstructing changes to the article.

Two other admins, RoyBoy and Duncharris are both blatantly violating Misplaced Pages:Civility. Duncharris saying "you're just a lowly troll" is a violation and, further, his reverts of my contributions to Coingate I believe violate Misplaced Pages:Harassment. RoyBoy with his comment "Who's on first? A disingenuous creationist," which he later called his "favorite" joke, was not just likely offensive to creationists, but he was engaging an obvious troll, contrary to Misplaced Pages:Trolls.

What do I hope to achieve? Well, I believe the article violates WP:NOT in that the article is like a personal essay. I would like to see that change. I believe restructuring the article, or at the least, characterizing the article accurately for potential viewers and provide disambiguation will be helpful. It cannot change with these people there. I am not the only one who thinks the article is bad. People on ID's nomination for featured article status page attest to this, saying things like:

"many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it"

"Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone"

"Shows Misplaced Pages At Its Worst," "makes Misplaced Pages look like a home for self-indulgent contributors"

"Who nominated this diatribe?" "This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Misplaced Pages"

"The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes"

Here is a good example: on the Intelligent Design page, there is section solely devoted to the criticism "Who designed the designer?" This is appropriate for an essay on the subject, but not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The question of "who designed the designer" is not at all unique to "Intelligent Design." It is a common critique of a variety of religious ideas. See Turtles all the way down.--Ben 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

You're probably not crazy about hearing this name again but there's been some tag-team blanking of the page and it's gone through a couple protections. At the moment I have it protected but I'll probably unprotect it here in a little bit. I know you were involved in this so I thought I'd drop you a note about it. Rx StrangeLove 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert war on Israel & West Bank

Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. Thanks IZAK 07:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Hello Slim Virgin, since you protected the DOM article, and you say you are here to help, why did you ignore my question below:

"After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)"Johnski 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposed text:

According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." However, the only offical website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

Do you think this section could be replaced with the current section? The last sentence is the only addition to the current version. Wouldn't this quote from the US OCC's official website help to give balance to the article?

SV I caution you to actually look at the links he's posted. Clearly, it does not say what he says it does. This is part of his campaign to twist the truth. He also goes around posting proposed pieces of text and then claims (fraduantly) he has consensus. This is exactly why no one will work with him. Davidpdx 06:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

Please check. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

She's breaking up. Eject, eject!

So, how was my acceptance concession speech? ^_^ - brenneman 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

"You appear to have violated 3RR at your RfC page. You may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself."

Does that mean you'll block yourself for violating RFC instructions? Or will your enforcement be selective? I think reverting vandalism is excluded from the 3RR rule. FuelWagon 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"You're deleting other people's comments, which you have no business touching, but you're leaving your own."

I don't know of any threaded comments by me that I've left on the RfC page. If I disputed a comment by someone I copied and pasted their words into my response area, and then responded to their post there, that is completely acceptable. The only other threaded comment I know of by me was answering a statement by Ann Heneghan by giving her diffs to two posts by Ed Poor. But Ann's comment was also a threaded comment, so I've moved the entire block of threaded comments to talk. There are no other threaded comments by me that I know of. FuelWagon 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and people have no business leaving threaded comments anywhere on the RfC page, as per RfC instructions. So, moving them to talk is acceptable. Actually, Bishonen was the first to start moving comments when the threads started getting heavy. Have you talked to Bishonen about "having no business touching" those comments too? or again, is your enforcement selective just against me? FuelWagon 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no. I sometimes wonder if what people see in Tony and I is what I see in the two of you, although I suspect that we're all insulted by that comparison in some way. I do wish that there was something that could be done to end all this fussin' and fightin'. I think I'm going to assign myself some homework and read up on the (certainly lengthy) history. Barring that, I'd be happy to do whatever it was thought it would take, just ask. - brenneman 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. That's like some kind of performance art. I try to put on my NPOV tinfoil hat when looking at RfCs - you know, to leave my preconceptions at the door and just examine the evidence. But this, it's so bizzare and compelling, with tables and stuff. I'm certainly willing to concede that there could be a conspiracy, with you as the black widow in a fuzzy jumper sitting in the middle. (Note - I always imagine you wearing the same jumper as the dog. Is that rude?) If you were going to pick someone to "snowball" FC would be a good candidate, the word smog makes it easy for people to ignore things he says regardless of their veracity. It's like a car wreck, I can't look away. Still, of course, reserving judgement until I examine the evidence. Whoa. - brenneman 04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Birthday Balloon

Wow! Congratulations. ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel's back again

The_Great_Saiyuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blocked indef; I extended Gimmiet's block to two months from now. Cripes. I'll CC you the email I send him.

Fwiw, there's some question on whether this was him. See User talk:The Great Saiyuki. Friday (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your follow-up on this. I'm actually quite happy to find out the IP was from an entirely different region. Friday (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y. 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak from my side too SV. Best wishes --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive ?

Slim, in what way I am disruptive ? Please take a good look at the use of such word. We all are only editing pages. Nothing disruptive as long as the software semaphores can deal with two or more editors editing the same page at the same time so please explain. If indeed I am disruptive I will stop editing the RfA. It really does not matter any more as it is far from consensus. Zeq 21:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried the discussion page but could not edit for some unknown reason so i am doing what you and others have done and editing the project page. Thanks, for your note. Zeq 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Try this: - what you suggested does not work and since no one used it I am still asking how was I disruptive ? Zeq 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Month long block on a DHCP IP User_talk:66.69.128.146

I'm aware of the blocks being made today against the user editing islam from tor and other places, so I understand why you blocked the IP, but a one month block for a dhcp pool address is somewhat long, dontcha think? --Gmaxwell 03:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen that IP do anything blockable recently, and I don't see any evidence he's Enviroknot. Of course, I know next to nothing about Enviroknot. I'm supopsed to be on a wikibreak, so just do what you want with it and i'll trust your judgement. Anyway, if you reblock it, I would suggest a shorter block time, since it's a dynamic IP. --Phroziac 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puppets Of Johnski

SV, here is a list I've compiled of possible sockpuppets he is using. Most of them have the exact same edits and content:

Here are the user names: User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

I had posted a message on David Gerard's user page and got no answer. Please let me know if your able to find anything out. Davidpdx 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ms. SlimVirgin: It should be easy to establish that I am only one of the users listed above (KAJ) and I have only used one IP address before my user name, which I disclosed. You may notice that Davidpdx didn't show the same good faith. It is easy to believe his agruments unless you read the entire history between Davidpdx and Johnski which showed that Johnski patiently made attempts to compromise. It appears that they had a hard time of it because they were trying to handle the entire subject instead of one issue at a time. Mr. Harrison suggested one issue at a time, but nothing happened in that direction. Let's just see Davidpdx honestly deal with the issue of the US OCC, and some locigal reason why that part shouldn't be balanced. This will expose which side is being reasonable. I don't think you have to be an expert on the subject to handle this one issue. It is quite simple, as an employee (Mr. Shockey) of the US OCC has been quoted as saying DOM is a "scam" but his boss (Mr. Stipano) wrote in an US OCC official publication only stating that "Melchizedek is an unrecognized sovereignty" responsible for granting a "license" to a bank called Caribean Bank of Commerce. Should an article give both sides of an argument, regardless of where you stand on the issue? Whether it is a scam or not isn't the issue, only that if there are publications that provide different views, you don't just include one side. In this case, isn't the higher authority, an official publication, more important than a quote of a verbal statement?.KAJ 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)